B. Gopi, Vellore V. ITO, Vellore

ITA 3167/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4894 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NICHAL JT
• Assessee Lawyers: A MAHESH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C/SMC, CHENNAI , ! BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.3167/MDS/2016 ' # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 B. GOPI, NO.80/80IB(10), ARCOT ROAD, VELLORE 632 004. [PAN: AAAPG 9331J] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(I), VELLORE ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.MAHESH, CA *+&' ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NICHAL, JT. CIT , $ ( - / DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2017 .% ( - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.04.2017 /O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 09.09.2016, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING HIS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R/W. S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (TH E ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 31.12.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE VALUA TION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, BEING A PLOT OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E RELEVANT YEAR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF . 2.50 LACS. THE REVENUE HAS, INVOKING S. 50C, APPL IED THE 2 ITA NO.3167/MDS/2016 (AY 2006-07) B.GOPI V. ITO STAMP VALUATION OF . 7.65 LACS FOR THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION ARISING ON ITS TRANSFER, I.E., U/S. 48 R/W S. 50C(1) OF THE AC T. THIS WAS SO DONE AS THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE VALUATION OFFICER (VO), T O WHOM THE REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S. 50C(2), AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED EVEN AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS GE TTING TIME BARRED ON 31.12.2009, SO THAT IT HAD TO BE IN ANY CASE COMPLE TED. CITING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AR DURING HEARIN G, THAT THE NOTICES BY THE VO CAME TO BE SENT AT AN ADDRESS FROM WHICH THE ASSESS EE HAD SINCE SHIFTED. FURTHER, WITH REFERENCE TO THE CORRESPONDENCES EXCH ANGED, IT WAS SOUGHT TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, ON BEING MADE AWA RE OF THIS FACT THROUGH THE AO, ACTED WITH DILIGENCE, SEEKING RELEVANT DETAILS QUA MATTERS ON WHICH INFORMATION HAD BEEN SOUGHT BY THE VO. IT WAS ACCOR DINGLY PRAYED THAT THE MATTER BE AGAIN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO SO A S TO ENABLE HIM TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALU ATION REPORT PURSUANT TO THE REFERENCE U/S. 50C(2). 3. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE LEGAL REMEDY OF SHOWING THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET UNDER REFERENCE I S BELOW THE STAMP VALUATION, WHICH IS DEEMED AS THE TRANSFER CONSIDERATION U/S. 50C(1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS CHARGEABLE U/S. 45. THE REVENUE ALSO CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AT FAULT IN-AS-MUCH AS THE REFERENCE STANDS M ADE IN TIME AND, BESIDES, HAD BEEN DULY TAKEN UP BY THE CONCERNED VO. THE REFEREN CE BEING PENDING, THE MATTER HAS TO BE TAKEN TO ITS LOGICAL END. THE ASSE SSMENT AS COMPLETED CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS IMBUED WITH AN IRREGULARITY. ACCOR DINGLY, THE SAME IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE QUA VALUATION, BOTH BEFORE HIM AS WELL AS THE VO. REF ERENCE IN THIS 3 ITA NO.3167/MDS/2016 (AY 2006-07) B.GOPI V. ITO REGARD IS MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GUDUTHUR BROS. V. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC), EVEN AS THE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN N.MEENAKSHI V. ASST. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 229 (MAD) BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN APPOSITE. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON APRIL 20, 2017 AT CHENNAI . SD/- ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED, APRIL 20, 2017 EDN 0 ( *'-12 32%- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. *+&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 4- ( )/CIT(A) 4. , 4- /CIT 5. 2$56 *'-' /DR 6. 67# 8 /GF